<gnh888@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182164607.025106.259760@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
> It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is
> mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers is
> ignore.

Yep, just like all the banks, airlines etc.
> What a world the Telstra world.....
> It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.

You are just realising this?
> Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.

Well the CEO is, but the new corporate attitude is very much John Howard's
Australia unfortunately.

On Jun 19, 4:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> gnh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is mostly
> > interested by selling new services and helping consumers is ignore.
>
> Just because someone said that doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>
> > What a world the Telstra world.....
> > It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>
> Not one eh ? Wota silly little ****wit child.
>
> > This 4 corners document implies << if Telstra Australia staffs are mentally tortured,
>
> Not even possible, most of them havent actually got a brain.
>
> > does that mean Telstra consumer torture consumer like myself>>
>
> Try that in english, wogchild.
>
> > I think Telstra Australia torture their own consumer for profit.
>
> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>
> > Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>
> Bet that will get the telstra suits pouring from their windows like lemmings for sure.
>
> > Just guess who is had the head of Telstra Australia?
>
> Try that in english, wogchild.

On Jun 19, 4:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> gnh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is mostly
> > interested by selling new services and helping consumers is ignore.
>
> Just because someone said that doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>
> > What a world the Telstra world.....
> > It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>
> Not one eh ? Wota silly little ****wit child.
>
> > This 4 corners document implies << if Telstra Australia staffs are mentally tortured,
>
> Not even possible, most of them havent actually got a brain.
>
> > does that mean Telstra consumer torture consumer like myself>>
>
> Try that in english, wogchild.
>
> > I think Telstra Australia torture their own consumer for profit.
>
> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>
> > Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>
> Bet that will get the telstra suits pouring from their windows like lemmings for sure.
>
> > Just guess who is had the head of Telstra Australia?
>
> Try that in english, wogchild.

Here is for your interest and educative value the program I am talking
about.

gnh888@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> gnh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia
>>> is mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers
>>> is ignore.
>>
>> Just because someone said that doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>>
>>> What a world the Telstra world.....
>>> It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>>
>> Not one eh ? Wota silly little ****wit child.
>>
>>> This 4 corners document implies << if Telstra Australia staffs are
>>> mentally tortured,
>>
>> Not even possible, most of them havent actually got a brain.
>>
>>> does that mean Telstra consumer torture consumer like myself>>
>>
>> Try that in english, wogchild.
>>
>>> I think Telstra Australia torture their own consumer for profit.
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>>
>>> Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>>
>> Bet that will get the telstra suits pouring from their windows like
>> lemmings for sure.
>>
>>> Just guess who is had the head of Telstra Australia?
>>
>> Try that in english, wogchild.
>
>
> Sie haben die Sprache von einem Schwein. Was macht jene Ihre Mutter?

gnh888@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> gnh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia
>>> is mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers
>>> is ignore.
>>
>> Just because someone said that doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>>
>>> What a world the Telstra world.....
>>> It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>>
>> Not one eh ? Wota silly little ****wit child.
>>
>>> This 4 corners document implies << if Telstra Australia staffs are
>>> mentally tortured,
>>
>> Not even possible, most of them havent actually got a brain.
>>
>>> does that mean Telstra consumer torture consumer like myself>>
>>
>> Try that in english, wogchild.
>>
>>> I think Telstra Australia torture their own consumer for profit.
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>>
>>> Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>>
>> Bet that will get the telstra suits pouring from their windows like
>> lemmings for sure.
>>
>>> Just guess who is had the head of Telstra Australia?
>>
>> Try that in english, wogchild.
>
>
> Here is for your interest and educative value the program I am talking about.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1954636.htm

On Jun 19, 12:13 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> <gnh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182164607.025106.259760@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is
> > mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers is
> > ignore.
>
> Yep, just like all the banks, airlines etc.
>
> > What a world the Telstra world.....
> > It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>
> You are just realising this?
>
> > Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>
> Well the CEO is, but the new corporate attitude is very much John Howard's
> Australia unfortunately.
>
> MrT.

Yep, this is total control. Which translate by full dictatorship.

Yes John Howards is the control of "masses" people.

John Howard does not understand how the internet works.

He is still living in the past.

The old philosophy of patronizing a few 100 people instead of a
million of business people.

100 People * 1 million AU$ = 100 millions

1million people * 100 AU$ = 100 millions

The reason in all this is the war in Iraq which cost 2 billions per
months.

This is why the infrastructure of Australia is neglected.

Because the money is spent on wars which do not benefit any one in
Australia
except the 100 people I am talking about.

>It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is
>mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers is
>ignore.
>What a world the Telstra world.....
>It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.

That's been the case ever since Telecom was changed to become Telstra. Until
then we still had affordable basic line rentals with no ******** bundled
services most people don't want or need, and it didn't take hours to sort
out 'outside the square' billing problems which thesedays require
call-centre supervisors to intervene and solve.
>Just guess who is had the head of Telstra Australia?

Depends which half of the company you look from. Part is owned by all
taxpaying Australians, and the other half is owned by a subset of that (ie.
'private' shareholders) plus a small bunch of instituional shareholders.

Telstra's primary business objective is to produce profit returns for
shareholders - not to provide low-cost, affordable services to 99.9999999
percent of Austalians.

"Kralizec Craig" <cd@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:f5ep8p$54g$1@yoda.apana.org.au...
> Depends which half of the company you look from. Part is owned by all
> taxpaying Australians, and the other half is owned by a subset of that
(ie.
> 'private' shareholders) plus a small bunch of instituional shareholders.

Did you miss the T3 sale? All of the company is owned by shareholders
looking for maximum returns.
Service is NOT a consideration in such cases, just as happened when the
government banks were privatised.
Network construction and re-investment has diminished as have the number of
maintenance staff. The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has
risen greatly though.
All totally predictable, and predicted by many, especially those with the
vested interests who stood to gain most from promoting privatisation. Of
course they don't admit it publicly though :-)

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Kralizec Craig <cd@lios.apana.org.au> wrote
>> Depends which half of the company you look from. Part is owned by all
>> taxpaying Australians, and the other half is owned by a subset of that
>> (ie. 'private' shareholders) plus a small bunch of instituional shareholders.
> Did you miss the T3 sale?

You clearly missed the detail.
> All of the company is owned by shareholders looking for maximum returns.

Wrong, the govt still owns a substantial percentage.

And not all of the non govt shareholders want a maximum return in the sense of dividends either.
> Service is NOT a consideration in such cases,

Wrong again. If they dont provide a decent service, they wont be providing maximum returns.
> just as happened when the government banks were privatised.

Wrong again. Nothing like that happened with those either.
> Network construction and re-investment has diminished

Thats arguable, some areas have increased most obviously with the NextG network.
> as have the number of maintenance staff.

Because the stuff that required the most maintenance has been replaced.
> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly though.

No it hasnt.
> All totally predictable, and predicted by many, especially those
> with the vested interests who stood to gain most from promoting
> privatisation. Of course they don't admit it publicly though :-)

<gnh888@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182329897.419131.244440@n15g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jun 19, 12:13 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>> <gnh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182164607.025106.259760@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > It is clearly said in the 4 corners report that Telstra Australia is
>> > mostly interested by selling new services and helping consumers is
>> > ignore.
>>
>> Yep, just like all the banks, airlines etc.
>>
>> > What a world the Telstra world.....
>> > It is called money ... profit and no services what so ever.
>>
>> You are just realising this?
>>
>> > Telstra Australia is Un_Australian.
>>
>> Well the CEO is, but the new corporate attitude is very much John
>> Howard's
>> Australia unfortunately.
>>
>> MrT.
>
> Yep, this is total control. Which translate by full dictatorship.
>
> Yes John Howards is the control of "masses" people.
>
> John Howard does not understand how the internet works.
>
> He is still living in the past.
>
> The old philosophy of patronizing a few 100 people instead of a
> million of business people.
>
> 100 People * 1 million AU$ = 100 millions
>
> 1million people * 100 AU$ = 100 millions
>
> The reason in all this is the war in Iraq which cost 2 billions per
> months.
>
> This is why the infrastructure of Australia is neglected.
>
> Because the money is spent on wars which do not benefit any one in
> Australia
> except the 100 people I am talking about.
>
> Georges
>

>> All of the company is owned by shareholders looking for maximum returns.
>
> Wrong, the govt still owns a substantial percentage.

Not really, the Future Fund owns it, and not for too long either
> And not all of the non govt shareholders want a maximum return in the
> sense of dividends either.
>
>> Service is NOT a consideration in such cases,
>
> Wrong again. If they dont provide a decent service, they wont be providing
> maximum returns.

Agreed
>> Network construction and re-investment has diminished
>
> Thats arguable, some areas have increased most obviously with the NextG
> network.

And the NextIP network.
>> as have the number of maintenance staff.
>
> Because the stuff that required the most maintenance has been replaced.

Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.

They are AXE and they just work
>> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly
>> though.

Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> All of the company is owned by shareholders looking for maximum returns.
>> Wrong, the govt still owns a substantial percentage.
> Not really,

Yes really.
> the Future Fund owns it,

Still the govt, stupid.
> and not for too long either

Wrong again. You watch.
>> And not all of the non govt shareholders want a maximum return in the sense of dividends either.
>>> Service is NOT a consideration in such cases,
>> Wrong again. If they dont provide a decent service, they wont be providing maximum returns.
> Agreed
>>> Network construction and re-investment has diminished
>> Thats arguable, some areas have increased most obviously with the NextG network.
> And the NextIP network.
>>> as have the number of maintenance staff.
>> Because the stuff that required the most maintenance has been replaced.
> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.
> They are AXE

And S12
> and they just work

Or require a hell of a lot less maintenance, anyway.
>>> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly though.
> Crap.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vj7fi.17573$wH4.8121@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.

True, but I was talking about ten years ago, NOT 40.
> They are AXE and they just work

In fact most AXE equipment has been replaced. And since that technology is
25+ years old, it hardly explains why they had around 10-20,000 more
technical staff 10 years ago.
> >> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly
> >> though.
>
> Crap.

The figures for the number of call centre staff are indisputable. Their main
duty is to deflect complaints and sell you more services instead.

>>>> All of the company is owned by shareholders looking for maximum
>>>> returns.
>
>>> Wrong, the govt still owns a substantial percentage.
>
>> Not really,
>
> Yes really.
>
>> the Future Fund owns it,
>
> Still the govt, stupid.

At arms length
>> and not for too long either
>
> Wrong again. You watch.

OK.
>>>> as have the number of maintenance staff.
>
>>> Because the stuff that required the most maintenance has been replaced.
>
>> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.
>
>> They are AXE
>
> And S12

Yep. Both as reliable as each other
>> and they just work
>
> Or require a hell of a lot less maintenance, anyway.

Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> All of the company is owned by shareholders looking for maximum returns.
>>>> Wrong, the govt still owns a substantial percentage.
>>> Not really,
>> Yes really.
>>> the Future Fund owns it,
>> Still the govt, stupid.
> At arms length

Still the govt, stupid.

And its no different on the maximum returns question anyway.
>>> and not for too long either
>> Wrong again. You watch.
> OK.
>>>>> as have the number of maintenance staff.
>>>> Because the stuff that required the most maintenance has been replaced.
>>> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.
>>> They are AXE
>> And S12
> Yep. Both as reliable as each other

Not really, more farting around with S12.
>>> and they just work
>> Or require a hell of a lot less maintenance, anyway.
> Yep. Less callouts, staff and outages
>>>>> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly though.
>>> Crap.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.
> True, but I was talking about ten years ago, NOT 40.
>> They are AXE and they just work
> In fact most AXE equipment has been replaced.

No it hasnt.
> And since that technology is 25+ years old, it hardly explains why
> they had around 10-20,000 more technical staff 10 years ago.

It took a long time to get rid of all the crossbar.
>>>> The number of staff handling customer complaint calls has risen greatly though.
>> Crap.
> The figures for the number of call centre staff are indisputable.

Pity you're lying about the numbers.
> Their main duty is to deflect complaints and sell you more services instead.

No it's not you ****ing tool.
ARE and ARF were crossbar, and replaced with AXE/S12 throughout the 90's.
AXE is fully digital (with the exception of a single analogue AXE exchange
that was installed in Endeavour Hills for a short period of time)
>
>> > And S12
>> Yep. Both as reliable as each other
>
> So no real change in the last 30 years then?
>

Only if you are stupid enough to think that AXE is crossbar. It's not.

Got any other pearls of ignorance you'd like to share with us? I could do
with a laugh.

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:4680e0a7$0$12821$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > HaHa. AXE *IS* X-bar!
>
> No it's not you ****ing tool.
> ARE and ARF were crossbar,

OK sorry, I was thinking of ARE, however AXE has been around in Australia
since 1981, that is LONG before privatisation.
>and replaced with AXE/S12 throughout the 90's.

And AXE throughout the 80's too it would seem.

The real shame is that Telecom Australia had proposed a fibre to the home
network throughout metropolitan Australia, within ten years, about fifteen
years ago. Now we are still arguing over when we might get a fibre to the
node network from someone , in the other capital cities. Meanwhile they were
forced to abandon a Billion dollar AMPS network, duplication of fibre to the
home for pay TV in some Sydney and Melbourne homes, and triplication, or
more, of digital mobile phone towers/infrastucture in some areas, while
others miss out altogether. Not that many will admit the experiment has
failed.

The fact is that network reliability improved, and customer costs
continually reduced in the 70 years prior to privatisation, as much or more
than they have since.

>> Yep, we dont have cross bar and step-by-step exchanges any more.
>
> True, but I was talking about ten years ago, NOT 40.
>
>> They are AXE and they just work
>
> In fact most AXE equipment has been replaced. And since that technology is

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:4680e0a7$0$12821$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> HaHa. AXE *IS* X-bar!
>>
>> No it's not you ****ing tool.
>> ARE and ARF were crossbar,
>
> OK sorry, I was thinking of ARE, however AXE has been around in
> Australia since 1981, that is LONG before privatisation.
>
>> and replaced with AXE/S12 throughout the 90's.
>
> And AXE throughout the 80's too it would seem.
>
> The real shame is that Telecom Australia had proposed a fibre to the
> home network throughout metropolitan Australia, within ten years,
> about fifteen years ago.

No they never did.
> Now we are still arguing over when we might
> get a fibre to the node network from someone , in the other capital
> cities. Meanwhile they were forced to abandon a Billion dollar AMPS
> network, duplication of fibre to the home for pay TV in some Sydney
> and Melbourne homes,

They didnt do that either.
> and triplication, or more, of digital mobile phone
> towers/infrastucture in some areas, while others miss out
> altogether.

**** all that matter miss out.
> Not that many will admit the experiment has failed.

It hasnt failed, it leaves what we had with the monopoly for dead.
> The fact is that network reliability improved, and customer costs
> continually reduced in the 70 years prior to privatisation, as much
> or more than they have since.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4681ef2a$0$20590$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:4680e0a7$0$12821$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> > HaHa. AXE *IS* X-bar!
>>
>> No it's not you ****ing tool.
>> ARE and ARF were crossbar,
>
> OK sorry, I was thinking of ARE, however AXE has been around in Australia
> since 1981, that is LONG before privatisation.
>
>>and replaced with AXE/S12 throughout the 90's.
>
> And AXE throughout the 80's too it would seem.

I started with them in the late 80s and there were only a handful of AXE
exchanges in use - And they were basically trial/experimental systems.
Even the major exchanges (Exhibition, Russel, Lonsdale in Melb for example)
were still crossbar.

FMO, which was the major push to get all exhanges digitised, was not kicked
off until 1996. (there were even a couple of step by step exchanges still
kicking around at that time)

>
> The real shame is that Telecom Australia had proposed a fibre to the home
> network throughout metropolitan Australia, within ten years, about fifteen
> years ago. Now we are still arguing over when we might get a fibre to the
> node network from someone , in the other capital cities. Meanwhile they
> were
> forced to abandon a Billion dollar AMPS network, duplication of fibre to
> the
> home for pay TV in some Sydney and Melbourne homes, and triplication, or
> more, of digital mobile phone towers/infrastucture in some areas, while
> others miss out altogether. Not that many will admit the experiment has
> failed.
>
> The fact is that network reliability improved, and customer costs
> continually reduced in the 70 years prior to privatisation, as much or
> more
> than they have since.

Not even close.
Look at the ADSL rollout. There's no way Telecom/PMG would or could have
rolled out such technology in such a short period of time.

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:46826a89$0$12820$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I started with them in the late 80s and there were only a handful of AXE
> exchanges in use - And they were basically trial/experimental systems.
> Even the major exchanges (Exhibition, Russel, Lonsdale in Melb for
example)
> were still crossbar.

Sure, the major exchanges were not replaced first, but there were definitely
a lot more than trials in the 9 years between the Endevour Hills trial, and
the start of the 90's.
> > The fact is that network reliability improved, and customer costs
> > continually reduced in the 70 years prior to privatisation, as much or
> > more than they have since.
>
> Not even close.
> Look at the ADSL rollout. There's no way Telecom/PMG would or could have
> rolled out such technology in such a short period of time.

In your opinion, as someone with no prior experience before the "late 80's".
However many people are still waiting for the ADSL rollout, so how long it
will take is unknown. Like the Foxtel optical cable rollout, they do a bit
then stop.
There are major suburban areas still using pair gain systems after all, and
let's not start on broadband in many country towns.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46837c0f$0$6157$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:46826a89$0$12820$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I started with them in the late 80s and there were only a handful of AXE
>> exchanges in use - And they were basically trial/experimental systems.
>> Even the major exchanges (Exhibition, Russel, Lonsdale in Melb for
> example)
>> were still crossbar.
>
> Sure, the major exchanges were not replaced first, but there were
> definitely
> a lot more than trials in the 9 years between the Endevour Hills trial,
> and
> the start of the 90's.

Correct, but they came nowhere near being in the majority.
>
>> > The fact is that network reliability improved, and customer costs
>> > continually reduced in the 70 years prior to privatisation, as much or
>> > more than they have since.
>>
>> Not even close.
>> Look at the ADSL rollout. There's no way Telecom/PMG would or could have
>> rolled out such technology in such a short period of time.
>
> In your opinion, as someone with no prior experience before the "late
> 80's".

That would only be correct if you made the silly assumption that I had no
prior experience with Telecom prior to becoming an employee.
> However many people are still waiting for the ADSL rollout, so how long it
> will take is unknown.

They got it to 90% of the population a hell of a lot quicker than it took
the PMG to get phones lines to that many.
They rolled out their HFC network a lot faster than the old PMG ever would
have too.
> Like the Foxtel optical cable rollout, they do a bit
> then stop.
> There are major suburban areas still using pair gain systems

Due to idiotic government planning departments insisting that suburbs grow
out rather than up.
> after all, and
> let's not start on broadband in many country towns.

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:468384d9$0$12839$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > However many people are still waiting for the ADSL rollout, so how long
it
> > will take is unknown.
>
> They got it to 90% of the population a hell of a lot quicker than it took
> the PMG to get phones lines to that many.

They have yet to reach 90%.
> They rolled out their HFC network a lot faster than the old PMG ever would
> have too.

The concept of improving technology, reducing prices and increasing demand
escapes you then.
Maybe the fact that the same thing has happened in other countries has also
escaped your attention?
> Due to idiotic government planning departments insisting that suburbs grow
> out rather than up.